Trainees exposed to the Clinical Supervision Model developed more critical, better-justified evaluations of supervision quality than control-group trainees¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2016 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Experimental-group TTs gave specific reasons for recommending their supervisors, while some control-group TTs cited lack of systematicity as a positive and 10% were undecided about recommending their US. → Gürsoy 2016

Evidence¶

Gürsoy 2016¶

Gürsoy, E., Kesner, J. E., & Salihoglu, U. M. (2016). Clinical Supervision Model in Teaching Practice: Does it Make a Difference in Supervisors' Performance?. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 41(11). https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2016v41n11.5

q2 · i? · causal · r2

Open-ended questionnaire item on whether TTs would recommend their US: 98% of experimental and 82% of control TTs said yes, but the control group had more undecided respondents (10%) and was, per the article, "inefficient when justifying their claim". The article interprets this as limited knowledge of quality supervision.

"Although both the overwhelming majority in both groups answered “yes”, nearly all of the control group did so (98%). Moreover, the control group had a greater percentage of their respondents who were “undecided” ."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Teacher trainees who experienced the Clinical Supervision Model rated their university supervisors significantly higher than trainees under the traditional system — related
• Experimental-group trainees reported more frequent observations and more systematic, adequate feedback than control-group trainees — related
• Cooperating teachers who experienced the Clinical Supervision Model rated their university supervisors significantly higher than cooperating teachers under the traditional system — related